Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 467 of 1997(P) (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.1997 (sentence passed on 18.09.1997) passed by Sri Swaroop Lal, learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. No. 207 of 1993/02 of 1996.) 1. Md. Iliyash, S/o Shekh Ababas. 2. Md. Rustam, S/o Gafur Ansari. 3. Shekh Ishak @ Ishaque, S/o Ritu Ansari. All residents of Vill- Varojpur, P.S.- Mahagama, Dist.- Godda. ... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Vishnupad Singh, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. ---- Dated: 07/03/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Vishnupad Singh, learned amicus curiae for the appellants and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.1997 (sentence passed on 18.09.1997) passed by Sri Swaroop Lal, learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1993/02 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Ramsundar Bhagat recorded on 07.08.1989 in which it has been stated that in the night of 6/7.08.189, the informant and his brother Kapildeo Bhagat were sleeping in the terrace, when they were awakened by five persons who asked them to open the door downstairs. The brother of the informant Kapildeo Bhagat was caught hold of by one of the miscreants and while going downstairs, in the light of the lantern, the 2 | P a g e informant could identify the dacoits as Sk. Iliyas with a pistol in his hand, Rustam Ansari with a rod and Ishaque Ansari with a lightning rod and two other persons who could not be identified and who had pistols in their possession. After opening the door, the informant went inside and closed the door. When the dacoits threatened the informant of committing the murder of his brother, the informant opened the door, at which 10-12 persons entered inside and started flashing the torch here and there. The father of the informant was assaulted with an iron rod by one of the dacoits while another unknown dacoit had fired at him as a result of which he fell down. The dacoits were in search of 7 kgs of silver and wanted to know from the informant as to where the same has been kept. The dacoits had taken away utensils, clothes and a table fan. When the informant raised a cry of alarm, the villagers had arrived after some time and the informant came to know that a dacoity has also been committed in the house of Durga Bhagat. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 60/89 was instituted under Section 395 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 207 of 1993/02 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 395 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Raj Narayan Bhagat has stated that on 6.04.1989, he was sleeping in his room and his cousin brother Ramsundar Bhagat and Kapildeo Bhagat were sleeping in the terrace where they were shouting that some miscreants had climbed on the terrace. The dacoits had forced his cousin brother to open the door and they were subjected to assault and while Ramasundar Bhagat had his hand fractured, his uncle Baldeo Bhagat was shot at. Several articles were looted by the dacoits. He had identified Iliyas, Rustam and Ishaque. In cross-examination, he has deposed that on hearing a 3 | P a g e commotion, he had woken up. He had entered into his room and closed the door from inside. He had identified Sk. Iliyas, Sk. Rustam and Sk. Ishaque. The dacoits had later on entered into his house and though they did not assault the inmates of the house, they had looted several articles. P.W.2 Sita Devi has stated that the dacoits had entered into the house of Baldeo Bhagat and thereafter in his house and they had looted some clothes and some articles. She had identified Iliyas, Rustam and Ishaque. Since Durga Bhagat, Pankaj Bhagat and Shyamsundar Bhagat were the witnesses in the case of dacoity, they were burnt to death and all the three accused were also accused in the said case. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident, her husband, son and daughter-in-law were present in the house. On the date of the incident, she was sleeping in a cot and she had identified the dacoits from close range. P.W.3 Jitendra Kumar alias Jitendra Bhagat has stated that Ramsundar Bhagat is his brother in whose house on 06.08.1989, a dacoity was committed and the dacoits had fractured the hand of Kapildeo. They had assaulted Ramsundar Bhagat, and Baldeo Bhagat was shot near his ear. The dacoits had taken away articles worth Rs. 4000/-. After the dacoity was committed, Ramsundar Bhagat had come and disclosed to him that he had identified Sk. Iliyas, Rustam Ansari and Sk. Ishaque. Ramsundar Bhagat, Kapildeo Bhagat and Durga Bhagat were burnt to death by the accused persons who were initially awarded death sentence, but it was later on reduced to life imprisonment. In cross-examination, he has deposed that dacoity was committed in his house also. He, at that point of time, was sleeping in the shop at a distance of 100 yards from his house. After the dacoity was committed, he had entered into his house. P.W.4 Baldeo Bhagat has stated that he was sleeping in his house while his sons were sleeping in the terrace when dacoits came and woke up his sons and forced him to open the door. About 10-12 4 | P a g e miscreants had entered, who committed assault and wanted to know about a valuable material. Ramsundar was assaulted on his left hand with a rod by Rustam. He had identified three dacoits in the light of torch who were Sk. Iliyas, Rustam Ansari and Ishaque Ansari. Somebody had shot at him as a result of which he fell down on the ground. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know as to whether it was dark or a moonlit night as he was inside his house. He had seen the miscreants inside the house. P.W.5 Anil Kumar Bhagat alias Jaiswal has stated about the dacoity committed by 12-15 persons, who had taken away some articles. The dacoits did not harm him but had shot at Baldeo Bhagat and had broken the hand of Kapildeo Bhagat. He had identified Sk. Iliyas, Rustam Ansari and Ishaque Ansari as some of the dacoits. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had identified the accused in the light of the torch. 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the dacoity. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Vishnupad Singh, learned amicus curiae that the main eyewitnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer as well as the Doctor have also not been examined which have caused prejudice to the defence. It has been submitted that there are no independent witnesses. 7. Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. has submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the eyewitnesses, who had identified the appellants as the miscreants who had participated in the commission of dacoity. 8. We have heard learned for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 9. The evidence of the witnesses reveal that Ramsundar Bhagat, Kapildeo Bhagat and Durga Bhagat were burnt alive by the appellants by setting fire in their house for which they were awarded death sentence, which was later on converted to life imprisonment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. P.W.4 is an eyewitness who was also shot at 5 | P a g e by one of the dacoits but fortunately, the injury did not turn fatal. He had seen the dacoits from close range and had identified the dacoits. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 also reveals about the identification of the appellants. In the fardbeyan also, the names of the appellants were mentioned by the informant though, unfortunately, he was not alive at the time of the trial. There is no iota of doubt regarding the active participation of the appellants in the commission of dacoity in the house of the informant. The learned trial court has appreciated the materials available on record while convicting the appellants and sentencing them accordingly. We do not find any cogent ground to interfere in the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.1997 (sentence passed on 18.09.1997) passed by Sri Swaroop Lal, learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1993/02 of 1996 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 10. Since the appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender immediately and forthwith to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. 11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 07th Day of March, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.